I presume you were referring to me in a recent post where you...

I presume you were referring to me in a recent post where you said "one wag" had suggested the apparent potency assay issue could be addressed by AI?

Yes. MSB have never mentioned using AI. You invented a possible connection it seems out of thin air. Referring to you (without specifying you) a wag, (yes a wag is like a joker or a clown) implies people that do that sort of creating of connections out of thin air are not to be taken seriously.

You are doing it again with your reference to transcription factors. If you keep grabbing hold of words you don't understand you may be able to craft a post that will appeal to others that also don't understand on the human level, heck you can get my empathy and sympathy on the human level too, but it makes it almost impossible to talk to you without wasting huge amounts of time.

And all my attempts to talk with people on a forum like this take place when characters, personalities like lopez can just hit the off-topic report button and have a moderator who is likely also clueless about the meaning of terms like transcription factor remove the post.

I post to the hotcopper message board on MSB in an almost impossible situation because I want to treat others with respect - but the reality is that many others don't deserve respect - it makes no sense to treat people who just makes stuff up (pretending at lnowledge they clearly don't have - by throwing words like AI and transcription factor around (without saying how AI could be used - I know it isn't necessary and would useless in the potency assay context because I do know about MSBs matrix approach from the ODAC papers) and transcription factor (if you can name a transcription factor involved in MSB's potency assays I'll be staggered - there are involved (NFkappa B is involved - but its inside the cell - it won't be purchased from a third party - unlike antobodies and unlike puriferal blood mononuclar cells (or kits) ) but I'm pretty certain they (transcription factors) are not involved as you are suggesting (ie they are not purchased).

You and Irene are both personable posters and courteous generally I would have not problem talking with either of you in person because I could refer you more deeply into the MSB science material which you clearly don't understand despite that it exists in the public domain.

What I can't do with you stan, on a public forum is credit your assumption that your are being ethical when you are like Dr Joanne Kurtzberg only being ethical with regards to treatment of children with GVHD by presuming as she does (against the science) that the cells work and are consistent enough when the evidence to show that does not exist.

You and she may feel yourself to be extremely ethical and righteous (just like anyone with religious certainty can have that conviction) - but science doesn't work in that subjective way.

Science works by setting aside the subjective certainty that one is correct - it has to be beyond subjective. It has to be logical and reproducable or it probably isn't science.

Folk like you and Irene can learn about potency assays specifically as they relate to MSB and Msbs current predicament by going back to the technical descriptions of how TNFR1 and Il2ralpha fit in to the MSB gioven explanations at ODAC. I am not trying to mislead you - I'm referring you to MSB sources.

You won't understand, your comments, however sincere you feel yourselves (and no one so far as I can see is prevented from learning some relevant science - its just hard - life is like that sometimes - but you can't be on even terms with a person that has done homework you refuse to do) will remain ignorant of the substance of the problems facing MSB until you can learn some of the science relating to what MSB is trying to do.